Inmate in prison wanting sex change

[Steffie]

Came across this recently....


BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- A killer who sued to have a sex change claims her body is becoming more masculine again because she's being denied treatment in prison as she awaits a ruling in her bid for the surgery.
Robert Kosilek, now known as Michelle, is shown at his 1993 murder trial. He was convicted of killing his wife.

Michelle Kosilek, formerly known as Robert, said that for months she has not been allowed to have court-approved hair-removal treatment or access to a specialist to discuss her testosterone levels.
"My breasts have shrunk, genitals have regained previous size and function, facial hair is thicker and scalp hair is thinner, all related to an elevated testosterone level," Kosilek said in a handwritten letter submitted to the court recently.
Robert Kosilek was sentenced to life in prison in the 1990 murder of his wife. Kosilek said the slaying was self-defense after she poured boiling tea on his genitals.
Kosilek, 58, who legally changed her name to Michelle in 1993 and has been living as a woman, first sued the Department of Correction in 2000, saying its refusal to allow her to have sex-change surgery violates the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
In 2002, U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf ruled that Kosilek was entitled to treatment for gender identity disorder -- including hormone treatments, laser hair removal and psychotherapy -- but stopped short of ordering sex-reassignment surgery.
Kosilek sued again in 2005, saying the treatments were not enough to relieve her anxiety and depression.
"I would not want to continue existing like this," Kosilek testified in June 2006.
The trial lasted on and off from May 2006 until March 2007, with expert testimony from 10 doctors, psychiatrists and psychotherapists. An Associated Press review last year found that the corrections department and its outside health care provider had spent more than $52,000 on experts to testify about the surgery, which would cost about $20,000.
Though testimony ended almost a year ago, Wolf has given no indication when he will rule in the case, which is being closely watched nationwide by advocates for other inmates who want to undergo a sex change. Transgender inmates in other states have sued prison officials, but none has persuaded a judge to order a sex-change operation.
The Department of Correction claims Kosilek's surgery would create a security quagmire and make her a target for sexual assault. Department spokeswoman Diane Wiffin would not comment on Kosilek's recent claims that her treatment is being neglected, citing the ongoing litigation.
In court papers filed last month, Kosilek claimed that prison officials have stopped following the treatment plan outlined by Wolf in 2002, causing a "serious revision" in her attempts to complete her transformation into a woman.
Kosilek said she has not received any laser hair removal or electrolysis since May 2006, and that prison officials have refused to let her see an endocrinologist since October 2007. She said she has repeatedly told prison authorities that the testosterone blocker Lupron has stopped functioning effectively.
In a written response, lawyers for prison officials said Kosilek has continued to receive adequate treatment for gender-identity disorder. The Correction Department also said Kosilek met three times in December with a nurse practitioner to discuss her concerns about her suppression treatment.
Kosilek, however, said prison officials have denied her repeated requests for a follow-up visit with the endocrinologist.
Prison officials said Kosilek received extensive laser hair removal treatments, then asked in January 2007 for electrolysis to remove hair that was too light for laser treatments. They said the department's mental health provider is currently reviewing the request for electrolysis to determine whether it is "appropriate or necessary treatment."
Kosilek's lawyer, Frances Cohen, said the surgery is a medical necessity for Kosilek, who has twice attempted suicide.
"We hope that the Department of Correction wouldn't use the amount of time that it necessarily takes the judiciary to resolve this to allow her treatment to move backwards," Cohen said.

[KimberlyS]

OK I will get taken to the whipping post for this but here it goes. If you want to argue my point please PM me and do not do it here as this is not the place.

I seen the start of this story awhile back during the first suit. IMHO, in general those in prison have tooooo many rights. If prison was not such a nice place maybe we would have a few less in there. When people can live better in prison than many have it outside of prison, something is really wrong. If this person can pay for the drugs, surgery, transportation, prison staff needed to make it happen and everything related to doing it, I say let it happen. If not, the person is in prison. They should only get basic medical care, basic housing, basic food,.... just the basics period.

It is prison not a vacation at Disney.

'!!@@!!'




kimberlys-cd
joe in a skirt

[CJ]

Hi all,

Yeah, this is a toughie, this whole medical care in prison issue. When faced with stories like this, I ask myself, what if the inmate were diabetic? or epileptic? Would we refuse illness-specific treatment on the basis that this is a penitentiary, not a 5-star hotel? I doubt it. But many argue that we should (refuse such services) in the case of transsexuals. Why? My theory? Simply because gender dysphoria treatments aim at relieving purely mental or psychological pain whereas treatments for, say, diabetes or epilepsy, aim at relieving physical suffering. The hidden premise is the following: someone who has caused mental or psychological anguish to others (in this case, and quite aside from having taken away his wife's life--in itself, a punishable act--Kolisek is to be held accountable for the emotional pain he's caused her family), such a person, it seems, ought not to have his own psychological suffering lessened in any way or he ought not to have his mental comfort valued more highly than that of his victim's family.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

In the end, this isn't a debate about whether transgendered inmates are entitled to receive medical treatments for their medical condition (that goes without saying), but whether serving time in prison for a crime is enough, in itself, to "rehabilitate" someone or whether we ought also to ensure that the time served be as unpleasant and as harsh as possible for the inmate in question. This is the real debate.

Having said this, I somewhat agree with Kimberly that, too often (not always, but too often), inmates serving time do so in environments and under conditions that would be the envy of many who live in poverty-stricken areas. And, for me, it isn't too hard to figure out which is worse (or more surprising) in a prosperous society like ours: that we'd have some inmates serving time comfortably or that we'd have people--sometimes entire families--living on the streets, surviving from hand to mouth.

We always make choices, both as individuals and as a society. We made our beds. Now let us sleep in them.

CJ

[DonnaT]

I don't believe she is deserving of surgery, in view of her crime, which would ultimately be paid for by the state.

However, I believe she has a right to continued mental therapy and hrt therapy. There are a lot of prisoners needing and getting mental and drug therapy. Denying her the same is discrimination.

[Absaroka]

Everyone in prison is innocent and they are all constantly mistreated and and abused by the guards.......Just ask any criminal.....Although CJ makes a point worth considering I really don't have much sympathy for this person. In particular prison inmate seem to file more lawsuits than anyone else around and it is all at our expense. If he had not killed his wife he would not be having these problems.

Absaroka

[ErinKaas]

Something this person needs to think about for herself -
1) What would happen when the other inmates hear about her new "anatomy"? She would not be safe at all.
2) Suppose she does get to see an SRS doc. What if it is not a good doctor? For something so important as SRS, wouldn't one want to be able to choose a doc instead of just going to whatever doc the prison sent her to?

For her to have SRS would just be an all around bad idea.

[Jaye]

Last year at Kappa Beta we got a letter from an inmate in Pennsylvania, who said "she" was a crossdresser, but didn't get to do much inside. I did a little search via Google, and it turned out this person got 35 years for beating his two little children to death with a baseball bat one morning because they wouldn't get ready for school fast enough. They were 5 and 6, respectively. The Board of Directors had said that members could contact this person if they wanted, but I don't think anyone did after my post.

[Ann Stef]

Massachusetts is one of those generous welfare states. This persn may get what he/she wants because of the court system. Only young people will take judgeships now, due to the low pay scale. They are easily convined and it may go thru. Prisons are becoming country clubs.

[Carolynn]

Well, I seem to be in a minority on this. I posted the following on another board of TSs where this discussion ran some 34 entries.

I suppose it sorta hinges on your view of criminology and the purpose of the penal system, as well as being a legal question of the system not following a court order. That alone should bring up the warden and his associates on charges before the judge issuing the order. And it was noted in the article Judge Wolfe stopped short of ordering surgery in making the order, so the court order was not excessive and relates to the health and welfare of the prisoner.

It is also interesting that the system has spent over 50 grand to ask multiple experts about the propriety of the treatment, giving the appearance of shopping for the expert they want to try to find grounds to evade the court order, when the cost of GRS is less than 20 grand. Their complaint that surgery would result in major security problems might be true if the person remained in the male prison population post op, and legally she would have to remain in that population without surgery but with the court ordered treatment. But it would not be much of a trick for a judge to transfer her as a post-op to a female prison with the same life sentence. And complying with the terms of the Judge Wolfe's court order would not be any more disruptive or risk security more than any other excursion beyond prison walls.

It seems to me more likely that there is a major intent of discrimination toward transsexuals in the system, as we experience without, and that goes back as well to the attitude so well expressed by several. What is the purpose of putting someone in prison for a heinous crime for "life" (though barring accidents or deliberate murder, life really does not mean life, usually)? Usually it is to remove a dangerous criminal, a threat to society, from being able to continue their depradations. Many people see the prisons as a place to warehouse those convicted of a crime, and also believe a crime justifies continued "punishment" beyond the loss of freedom that incarceration legally is. When you are in prison, you cannot work to earn money and do not have civil rights beyond those provided for by the penal system, which is unspoken but concommittent punishment as well. When you get out, you do not have voting rights. So much for "paying your debt to society", eh?"Throw the Book at them."

In fact, I doubt seriously if the judge in the case in pronouncing sentence told Michelle Kosilek that she/he was to be imprisoned for life and furthermore she was punitively not allowed to become the person she actually is as part of her punishment. The attitude that prisoners should be deprived of more than their freedom is one that is an outgrowth of our puritanical past just as much as our right wing religious heritage that plagues us in our search for civil rights.

Others wish prisons to be places of rehabilitation. Sure, even the most bleeding heart group should agree that some sense should be used in at least selecting prisoners for rehabilitation. It makes little sense to attempt the rehabilitation of a career criminal, a three time loser, a serial killer that will be likely to simply resume their offenses when released. But there are circumstances where severe punitive measures are counter productive. Situational, unpremeditated murder is one such circumstance.

In Kosilek's case, the murder of his wife appears to have been situational possibly in the throes of an extended argument, perhaps over his/her transsexuality though from the aricle we do not know for sure, but the assult on his genitals he claimed as a triggering event might suggest that, if true. These kinds of situational killings of spouses happen every day in this country, and most result in a maximum 25 year prison sentence as 2nd or 3rd degree murder, as the situational nature is recognized by the courts. The court's sentences reflect the belief that the person is not considered to be a threat to society in general. There may be circumstance I do not know, but on the surface of it, it appears that Kosilek may have been sentenced to life in a manner not in keeping with the crime, considering sentences passed in other, similar crimes. The primary difference appears to be that the offender in this case is transsexual.

In any event, the penal system is responsible for the health and welfare of the people in its charge, and in the face of a court order and expert testimony, their failure to provide or their failure to continue medical chemical treatment for Kosilek seems like cruel and unusual punishment to me.

Love, CarolynnL

[CJ]

Hi all,

Bravo, Carolynn! What a lucid post!

I stirred up a bit of a debate on the CDDF in my reply to Steffie's cross-posting of this article over on that forum. I couldn't articulate as well as you just did the situational aspect of Kosilek's crime and I chose not to venture too far out on a limb on this one because my knowledge of the U.S. criminal and penal systems is spotty, at best (watching CSI and Law & Order can only take you so far, after all!). However, I tried to make clear, over a couple of posts, what you managed to sum up in one sentence:

In any event, the penal system is responsible for the health and welfare of the people in its charge, and in the face of a court order and expert testimony, their failure to provide or their failure to continue medical chemical treatment for Kosilek seems like cruel and unusual punishment to me.

I also, in one post on the CDDF, pasted a copy the following National Post article (the Post is one of Canada's two major national newpapers):

NATIONAL POST
Janice Tibbetts
Friday, February 07, 2003

OTTAWA - Canada's federal prisons will be forced to allow sex-change surgery for transsexual inmates as a result of a court ruling that concluded a blanket ban is discriminatory.
"If the medical opinion is that sex reassignment surgery is an essential service for a particular inmate, it follows that it should be paid for by Correctional Services Canada, as would any other essential medical service," wrote Madam Justice Carolyn Layden-Stevenson of the Federal Court of Canada.

Corrections Canada will revise its policy because of the decision, spokeswoman Michele Pilon-Santilli said.
But she warned that sex-change operations will not be available for all transsexual inmates.

The decision upholds a 2001 decision from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the case of Synthia Kavanagh.
The tribunal said that it was discriminatory for prisons to have a blanket ban on sex-change operations but not on "non-essential" services such as the removal of tattoos.

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act requires prisons to provide essential health care to inmates.
Kavanagh, a 41-year-old transsexual, alleged discrimination based on sex and disability after prison officials refused to allow her to undergo a sex-change operation that had been pre-approved before she was imprisoned.

Kavanagh began hormone therapy and lived as a woman as a teenager.

When she was convicted, she had been been conditionally approved for sex reassignment surgery.
She ended up paying the $14,000 for her operation because of the prisons' ban. After spending more than a decade in various men's prisons, she was transferred more than two years ago to Joliette Institution, a medium-security women's prison north of Montreal.

The ruling is expected to affect less than a dozen transsexuals in Canadian prisons. In 2000, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 10 of the 2,500 inmates in federal penitentiaries were "pre-operative" transsexuals, but not all of them wanted surgery.
Sex-change surgery is considered an essential service that is covered by medicare in most provinces when a patient has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, the medical term for people who believe they are the wrong sex.

It should be no different in Canadian prisons, said Justice Layden-Stevenson.
"The right of government to allocate resources as it sees fit is not unlimited," said Justice Layden-Stevenson in a judgment released yesterday.

"A human rights tribunal enjoys a broad discretionary power to award remedies to redress a discriminatory practice."
Ms. Pilon-Santilli said that Corrections Canada allowed the operations decades ago -- often with sad results.

"There have been a lot of tragedies of people who went through it but just could not adjust," Ms. Pilon-Santilli said.
Prisoners are permitted to dress as women and take hormone replacement drugs.

Kavanagh's lawyer could not be reached yesterday to say whether Kavanagh would seek reimbursement in light of the court decision.
The decision agreed with the human rights tribunal that candidates for sex changes would need medical assessment from one of five medical specialists.

Now, in Kosilek's case, I'm not sure she was "pre-approved" for SRS prior to her conviction. But that, to me, seems immaterial; she was diagnosed, she was prescribed a course of treatment, and, if need be, she must have access to SRS as part of that treatment. Anything else is cruel and unusual punishment.

Again, thanks for your post, Carolynn. I was starting to feel a little bit alone in all this.

Love,
CJ

[Absaroka]

I think that as usual in a situation as complex yet murky as this there is room for a lot of ideas.

Lets start with what we don't know. We don't know the exact circumstances of the murder. Was it truly self defense, was it a crime of impulse, or still something else. Self defense can be an unclear area. Was it neccesary to kill his wife or could he have protected himself without killing her but got carried away in his pain and rage? Is he making this up all together?

As an example there was a murder in our town a few years ago that shows how many things can go wrong.

A young man had witnessed a crime and testified. He recieved a number of threats in response to this and began to carry a pistol for self protection. One day he was riding in a car with some friends and another car pulled up with some other teenagers who were drunk. Unpleasant comments were exchanged. A convenient parking lot was found near by and fisticuffs began between two of the other boys. So far except for the weapon nothing too unusual for teenage boys.

The physical alteration between the two boys, while not involving weapons, became fairly unpleasant. Seeking to end it the young man, who had not really initiated any of this, pulled out his gun and fired at the ground. At this point he was rather frightened that his friend would be badly hurt in the fistfight. One of the other boys, seeing this, decided that the safest course of action would be to take the gun away. He was shot in the chest and died. His killer was sentenced to 10 years.

It was a nebulous case of self defense. His friends life was probably not in danger but you can be very seriously hurt without weapons and it seemed that this might happen. If they had not responded to the challenge in the first place none of this would have happened, but that is something teenage boys just don't always understand. It could be argued that the knowledge that he was armed should have made him reluctant to get involved in a fight in the first place. And of course if the other boys had kept their mouths shut none of this would have happened. So what exactly is justice for stupid teenage boys?

I thought of this just yesterday when some guy honked at me as I slowed down to turn into the grocery store parking lot. I gave him the finger as I turned and then he too pulled into the parking lot. But I parked right in front and he drove around to the back and I didn't see him again

Back to the person this post is about.

We also don't know what his status was pre incarceration. Was he pre op or just something he was unclear about?

I don't agree that our prisons have turned into country clubs. It's true that the minimum security facilities for non violent offenders aren't all that umpleasant but that is often a function of the nature of the inmates. I've known a number of people who were in medium security facilities and none of them said anything good about them. True in the winter they may have a certain attraction for a homeless addict but saying something is better than a sidewalk in midwinter while dodging kids who think abusing bums is fun hardly makes it a country club.

Yes ideally a lot of prisoners should be rehabilitated. But rehabilitation really falls into two big areas. Preparation for employment and drug rehab. And there are a number of people who are just too sociopathic to be rehabilitated.

Yes 2nd degree murder is often committed by non career criminals. But the victim is still dead.

In my opinion we know far too little about this person to discuss his situation intelligently. However in general my idea of essential medical services do not include SRS unless it was iminent before incarceration.

And lets remember that this person has already been convicted of something far more serious than lying.

Absaroka

[Violet]

I've been reluctant to post on this thread because I have some *highly* nonstandard views about crime and punishment and I don't want to set off a 'Mordor' bomb here. I often find the views of others on the penal system to be curious and more than a little frightening. Get an otherwise sane, happy and reasonable person on the topic of crime and punishment, and they start to sound somewhat sadistic (to my unrefined palate). People talk about how 'prison should be a punishment not a 5 star hotel'. Now, I have friends who have been through the justice system here in SK, primarily for drug related 'offenses' or for a situation - like Michelle in this article described hers to be - in which they were provoked to extreme violence by intense (and physical) disrespect. And let me tell you, it's no picnic to be in jail, let alone to be there with a painful and debilitating untreated psychiatric condition. I can't think of very many crimes for which daily exposure to the threat of rape, severe beatings, and even being burned to death like a rat in a cage is not punishment enough.

Let's leave aside the question of what really happened between this person and their spouse, and whether they really deserve to be confined in close quarters with gang members and other professional criminals who live with, and commit, violent acts every day. People who are often intensely prejudiced against our 'kind' and more than willing to express that prejudice in an physically harmful manner. (would you feel different if she was there for prostitution, or possession of marijuana?) Regardless, whatever the case my be, I think she's pretty much being punished. Severely, seriously punished. If they were suffering from schizophrenia or bipolar disorder or suicidal depression, they should receive treatment. After everything that is said in this forum, and how supportive we all are toward each other, I have difficulty believing that gender reassignment treatment is viewed as a 'luxury' or that one of our sisters who is suffering should be denied this solace just because she took a wrong turn and ended up in prison for life. It may not be necessary in every case but, as I'm sure you're all aware, these feelings we have can be intensely painful and distressing without an outlet.

Again, I don't mean this to be a 'tirade' or an attack on anyone but I really just couldn't let this go without saying something.

[DonnaT]

I see a problem with providing SRS/GRS in a prison environment, and that is the lack of the transitioner being able to follow the strongly encouraged HBS standards of care.

On the outside, one must go through a period (year or more) of living 24/7 as a woman (in M2F cases) to determine if she can handle life as a woman. How does one do this in a prison? Does the M2F get moved to a woman's prison and live among the prisoners for a year before surgery? Does the M2F go about the male prisoners as a woman for a year to see if she can handle living as a woman?

What happens when a prisoner undergoes surgery, and then gets out/paroled, and finds she can't handle living on the outside as a woman? She made a mistake, and the government may not have done enough to ensure she was capable of handling life on the outside as a woman.

Does she then have the right to file suit against the government because they didn't follow the HBS standards of care?

Therapy and HRT are one thing, and should be allowed, IMO, but surgery, I'm not so sure.

[Carolynn]

Hi Donna. As you point out, it would be very hard for Kosilesk to carry out the RLE inside a male prison. However, there is a misunderstanding and a deliberate refusal, I think, to understand the nature of transition.

When a person changes their name, documents, and otherwise makes preparation to live in her true gender, presurgery, and officially begins RLE with her therapists agreement, then that person has transitioned. They have left the old identity behind. People make such a big thing out of the "final surgery" as though that is the irrevocable point in transition, but actually, it is considered the "icing on the cake" by most transsexuals I know.

About 6 months or so on hrt is the point of no return physically. The person is, in most cases, permanently chemically castrated. No more squiming spermies. If there is any discharge from the prostate after that point, it is a clear liquid. Though the person may bear the biological male markers for a time, they are effectively no longer male, and there is only a very small percent after one year that can maintain a functional erection without chemical help, pornographers "SheMales" aside.

There are factors that reverse somewhat if hrt is interferred with, and these are described by Michelle Kosilesk. Testosterone can rebound depending upon the age of the person and the length of time on hormones, but that will not reawaken testicles. The voice may deepen slightly, body hair may return, facial hair, if any is still present, may thicken its shaft diameter and be more apparent, though usually it's vellus hair, but the person is not functionally male, and nothing happens that is not found typically in many post menopausal women.

Logically and perhaps medically speaking, the person on HRT for 6 months to a year could be placed in a women's prison, for all the effect that would have on (oh horrors) sexual intercourse within the prison. There would be more action between guards and women seeking favors or drugs than with the TS. However, you know what kind of furor that would raise with feminists and any attorney that could scrape up a client in the women's prison, and tatlle rags. I know of only one case that received publicity, in England over 5 years ago, where such a transfer took place. In the women's prison, and within the strictures of the penal system, the person could have a kind of RLE, dressing as the other women in the system were required to. It certainly would not be ideal, but the person is in prison, after all.

Love, Carolynn

[Azurielle]

I usually rule it like this: If it's from his wallet and not from my tax money, I say it's fine.

Sure, he's in prison, but that doesn,t mean he can't live happily. I mean if he's depressed because of his gender it's actually better t let him do it. A happy inmate has an 80% better chance at being rehabilitated than an average American in the hole. (No pun ntended)